"BW" <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Amxtb.161153$275.495202@attbi_s53...
"Thumper" <jaylsmithXYZ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nc5drvcvcdmnf3qd072plul031it3vqtc4@4ax.com...
On 14 Nov 2003 10:18:38 -0800,
(Errant_Eye)
wrote:
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<GU6tb.10231$iX4.3835@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>...
"BW" <bw4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LN6tb.198701$Tr4.567955@attbi_s03...
"Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Cb6tb.10196$KN4.8717@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Just making up numbers now? Republicans have 98%
of the power and
cry
when
they can't have the remaining 2%. Greedy
crybabies.
So why do the Democrats not want to allow the women
nominated to even
be
*voted* upon by the Senate, as the Constitution
specifies??
You already asked me that question. It doesn't get
smarter the more you
say
it.
Actually, your failure to answer the question makes it
seem more
appropriate every time the question is asked. I think
Bush should do
a recess appointment of every nominee forced to wait
more than 3
months for approval. The senate can veto any nominee
with a simple
vote, failure to vote is the same as consent.
Sure he can do recess appointments but the Republicans
know that
turnabout is fair play. Beginning in January 2005 a
Democrat will be
in the position of doing recess appointments.
Thumper
What part of "Clinton already used recess appointments"
did you not
understand, Thumper? Bush recess appointments WOULD be
turnabout and fair
play, since you pathetic Democrats ALREADY did that.
Also, every one of the
Nine Democrat Dwarves is trailing President Bush badly in
the polls, and
that's with Bush not even starting to campaign or
advertise yet! The
Democrat Party is in deep weeds.....
Keep ranting, Babs, you're making us look REALLY good.
.
